User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive13

Photographers Blackbelt

		THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
		I hereby award at you this Photographers Blackbelt for your outstanding and excellent pictures. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Alvesgaspar!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:POTY Feb 11.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Grasshopper 2007-1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:FP statistics Mar February 2008-2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Daisy histogram.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Monarch Butterfly Purple Flower 3000px edit.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Sextant.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Astrolabe.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:TO map.gif was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Spider 2007-2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:POTY 2007 stat1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:FP statistics Mar February 2008-1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP August 2009-1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Should be ok. --kallerna 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vozes Almodovar August 2009-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK, although the flashlight and the contrasting dark background are not ideal. -- H005 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Millipede August 2009-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent IMO Cayambe 08:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oxidus gracilis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good quality (QI photo) and fulfills all requirements for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis (Copper Demoiselle), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All fine for this scope. Lycaon (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eulema May 2009-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp May 2009-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Melanostoma scalare, female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Fulfills all VI criteria, photo in good quality. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

question

Hi Alves, May I please ask you, if of course you have a time, take a look at this [1] and tell me, who in your opinion is the copyright holder of that map? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Too late now... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FP discussion

I think you are basically right, FP is a little indulgence by people participating here, and the FP images and pages have little importance to the project apart from the enjoyment of the Commoners and as a source of pretty good images for our 'shop window'. What do you think of having FP categories by year which would allow us to keep that history but also highlight the improvements of technology (and perhaps skill ;-) ? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that 'FP images and pages have little importance to the project'. In many fields there was in the last two or three years a dramatic improvement in the quality of the available images due to the stimulus of FPC. Macrophotography, reproductions of old engravings and panoramas of both nature and urban themes are significant examples. Many of these are now part of WP's articles and other languages wikis. Other have appeared in important non-Wikimedia projects, lke Encyclopdia Britannica, and have been printed in numerous publications around the world (I have received several requests myself). As for organizing the FP galleries by year I think it is an unnecessary complication. I agree that all FP's should show the year of promotion in the template though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok you think the improvement is due to FPC rather than QIC. Yes, I see what you mean with things like macro photography, the competition certainly drives people to put in more work. But apart from the relatively few people who actually enter the FPC competition, does it have much effect on the quality of the other 5 million photos here?

How do you think people go about finding our FPs ? That is: do you think they just use google etc to find a good image, or are they finding them in a wikipedia article, or are they coming to Commons and searching through the FP pages? Do any of the people inquiring after your images say where/how they found them?

Yes I would put the year on each FP promotion template. I would put each into a year category too so that a whole cohort can be seen together. No I wouldn't try to order FP galleries by date. The more contentious question is what to do with the FP galleries. If people do actually go there to find good images of the technical quality expected today, are we doing them a dis-service by giving them old, inferior images as well? If people seldom wade through FP galleries in the hope of finding what they want, but instead use search functions or categories, then perhaps it doesn't matter if the galleries contain a mixture. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations Alvesgaspar! Your picture Image:Greenwich clock.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day for October 28, 2009! Go to User:Presidentman/potd/28 October 2009 on Wikipedia to see what it looked like! - Noddy (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Poppy May 2008-1.jpg

I belive this is Papaver rhoeas. Look at the fruits in the following images:

Papaver rhoeas Papaver rhoeas

Papaver dubium Papaver dubium epibase (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ouro Preto November 2009-11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice view, good work under difficult light-conditions --Mbdortmund 11:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ouro Preto November 2009-11a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Archaeodontosaurus 12:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp November 2009-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly June 2009-4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice result -- George Chernilevsky 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Galleries

Hello,

Per Commons:Galleries, I do not see the point of Zicca : there is only one picture in Category:Zicca. Galeries are not meant to duplicate Categories.

Of course, this is not a rule of thumb : even if something like Orthetrum brunneum has the same content than the category, it does have a layout that brings relevant additional information. Hence, though I would have not created it myself, I find it perfectly fine.

But I do not the point of having a gallery with only one picture ? Jean-Fred (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just working ahead. Very often gallery pages are not created for pure laziness. Yes, I could live with a rule limiting the display of pictures to either galleries or categories, but such rule will never be consensual -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Zicca.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info - ID confirmed with world specialist on neotropical Heteropterans, Harry Brailovsky. Possibly a Zicca faeniola, but not possible to distinguish the species from a photo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support DOF perhaps a bit narrow, but ok for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Guitar May 2009-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good -- George Chernilevsky 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vernier caliper.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent work -- George Chernilevsky 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Eupeodes corollae (male).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Yes! Best version. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Request What about geolocation? --Myrabella (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for having added it. --Myrabella (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  SupportKersti (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of São Francisco de Assis, Ouro Preto, Brazil.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I like that this photo shows surroundings unlike the other photos in the category. However, I think it would still benefit from a slight crop. I think after a successful moderate crop it would clearly be the most valued one for the church. However, I would keep the original image as well, since it well serves the purpose in the city article. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the 6 criteria are correct -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Orthetrum brunneum (Brown Skimmer), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Previous reviews

---

•  Info New attempt, I think the image deserves it -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This one wants to go, let's review it. OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Porto Covo November 2009-1a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo November 2009-1a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Panorpa meridionalis (female).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - I believe this one is the most interresting of the three available because the beak and the abdomen are shown better (females don't have the scorpion-like abdomen of the males). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Excellent work!
  •  Request @ the previous reviewer: please sign your vote :-) --Myrabella (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Oops, it was me, again. :) --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Eilema uniola, male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - If this one is promoted, it will be my 100th VI ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hum, maybe I'll oppose then... Or comment every 24h... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MattiPaavola (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Valued Images Barnstar :)

			* * * The Valued Images Barnstar * * *
			I hereby award to Joaquim Alves Gaspar a.k.a. Alvesgaspar Thank You for all the cool VI's and other very good and useful contributions. 100 Valued Images - Excellent! -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, George, that was really nice! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Also congratz from me. You could flash this on your user page now ;-) --Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hey there. :) I was wondering if you'd be interested in running for adminship? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm too busy and too ignorant about Commons' ways: not really the right person for the job. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --George Chernilevsky ^talk